3 ms·

You've mentioned rights accorded to citizens, but not to noncitizens, twice now. I can't see the relevance. Which relevant right is guaranteed to citizens, bu

You've mentioned rights accorded to citizens, but not to noncitizens, twice now. I can't see the relevance. Which relevant right is guaranteed to citizens, but not to noncitizens in U.S. jurisdiction? Detainment is not the only answer if you want these cases to be processed. I cite as evidence the fact that there was a backlog of these cases to be processed when the zero-tolerance policy was implemented. If cases were not being processed, there would be no backlog. Homeless people sometimes going to prison is not relevant to whether or not every illegal immigrant should go to prison.

manigandham 8y ago
The right to be in the country. Either they are detained and the case is processed or they are deported immediately. You seem to have no answer to where else to put people who cannot be in the country legally. The backlog is a resource issue. Precisely the kind of thing that can be helped with better software.
- amalcon 8y ago
  Re: "the right to be in the country", there is no such right. U.S. citizens do have the (pretty sure only legislative) right to obtain a U.S. passport, which may be presented at a port of entry. Entry may not be denied to someone carrying a genuine and current U.S. passport, though they might be immediately imprisoned upon doing so for unrelated crimes. Entry of a U.S. citizen by other means, however, is just as illegal as a noncitizen overstaying their visa. Re: "no answer", I had been operating under the assumption that we could take the entire history of the United States prior to April 2018 as evidence that there are other ways of doing things. A variety of solutions were employed prior to that date, with only one solution being employed after. This is sufficient evidence that other approaches are indeed possible. If the argument is that all of these previous solutions were in fact illegal, then I'm not really qualified to have that argument. Most legal scholars seem to disagree, though. The backlog is indeed a resource issue. Resource issues are evidence of demand for resources. Demand for these resources is driven by the need to process immigration cases. The backlog is therefore evidence that cases were being processed.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    We're going in circles. They are illegal immigrants. They cannot be in this country so you have to detain them while being processed or deport them immediately. There is no middle ground. I'm not sure what you're referring to as before April 2018 because it's the same process, only the enforcement was worse back then was lacking to the detriment of the nation. Laws are now being followed properly with some adjustments to the queue. The cases are being processed, and will continue to do so. Better software will only help this situation, along with actually knowing where the person is.
    - amalcon 8y ago
      You claim that there was no process change in April 2018? That's certainly a new one to me, and frankly I'm not sure how to have a discussion when we disagree on such basic facts. Politifact (sadly the most neutral source on my first search page) quotes: >Before Trump came into office, families were detained together, sent back immediately or paroled into the country, said Peter Margulies, an immigration law and national security law professor at Roger Williams University School of Law. Now, prosecution is happening across the board and has become the uniform policy. Were the options to "[detain them] together, [send them] back immediately, or [parole them] into the country" somehow impossible even when this was being done? https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jun/06/what-you-need-know-about-trump-administrations-zer/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jun/06...
      - manigandham 8y ago
        Yea, same process. You just repeated what I said. What exactly do you think is different? 1. Are you trying to talk about separation instead? Detaining together is because many people weren't prosecuted, so enforcing the law will lead to possible separation. From your own article: "Prosecutions were rare prior to the Trump administration... The fact that previous administrations did not broadly prosecute all illegal entries..." 2. Parole is not related to illegal immigration. It's for humanitarian emergencies and granted in rare cases where family is dying or other extenuating circumstances. It specifically authorizes the person to enter and therefore they are actually allowed to be in the country. An illegal immigrant may be granted parole the same way they may be granted asylum and will no longer have an illegal status for the duration. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/humanitarian-or-significant-public-benefit-parole-individuals-outside-united-states https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/humanitarian-or-significa... So parole is one outcome of processing but while they are waiting to be processed it is again only 2 options: detain or deport. And detainment might lead to separation during prosecution. None of this is new, it's just actually being done as the law states.

manigandham 8y ago

The right to be in the country. Either they are detained and the case is processed or they are deported immediately. You seem to have no answer to where else to put people who cannot be in the country legally. The backlog is a resource issue. Precisely the kind of thing that can be helped with better software.

amalcon 8y ago
Re: "the right to be in the country", there is no such right. U.S. citizens do have the (pretty sure only legislative) right to obtain a U.S. passport, which may be presented at a port of entry. Entry may not be denied to someone carrying a genuine and current U.S. passport, though they might be immediately imprisoned upon doing so for unrelated crimes. Entry of a U.S. citizen by other means, however, is just as illegal as a noncitizen overstaying their visa. Re: "no answer", I had been operating under the assumption that we could take the entire history of the United States prior to April 2018 as evidence that there are other ways of doing things. A variety of solutions were employed prior to that date, with only one solution being employed after. This is sufficient evidence that other approaches are indeed possible. If the argument is that all of these previous solutions were in fact illegal, then I'm not really qualified to have that argument. Most legal scholars seem to disagree, though. The backlog is indeed a resource issue. Resource issues are evidence of demand for resources. Demand for these resources is driven by the need to process immigration cases. The backlog is therefore evidence that cases were being processed.
- manigandham 8y ago
  We're going in circles. They are illegal immigrants. They cannot be in this country so you have to detain them while being processed or deport them immediately. There is no middle ground. I'm not sure what you're referring to as before April 2018 because it's the same process, only the enforcement was worse back then was lacking to the detriment of the nation. Laws are now being followed properly with some adjustments to the queue. The cases are being processed, and will continue to do so. Better software will only help this situation, along with actually knowing where the person is.
  - amalcon 8y ago
    You claim that there was no process change in April 2018? That's certainly a new one to me, and frankly I'm not sure how to have a discussion when we disagree on such basic facts. Politifact (sadly the most neutral source on my first search page) quotes: >Before Trump came into office, families were detained together, sent back immediately or paroled into the country, said Peter Margulies, an immigration law and national security law professor at Roger Williams University School of Law. Now, prosecution is happening across the board and has become the uniform policy. Were the options to "[detain them] together, [send them] back immediately, or [parole them] into the country" somehow impossible even when this was being done? https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jun/06/what-you-need-know-about-trump-administrations-zer/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jun/06...
    - manigandham 8y ago
      Yea, same process. You just repeated what I said. What exactly do you think is different? 1. Are you trying to talk about separation instead? Detaining together is because many people weren't prosecuted, so enforcing the law will lead to possible separation. From your own article: "Prosecutions were rare prior to the Trump administration... The fact that previous administrations did not broadly prosecute all illegal entries..." 2. Parole is not related to illegal immigration. It's for humanitarian emergencies and granted in rare cases where family is dying or other extenuating circumstances. It specifically authorizes the person to enter and therefore they are actually allowed to be in the country. An illegal immigrant may be granted parole the same way they may be granted asylum and will no longer have an illegal status for the duration. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/humanitarian-or-significant-public-benefit-parole-individuals-outside-united-states https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/humanitarian-or-significa... So parole is one outcome of processing but while they are waiting to be processed it is again only 2 options: detain or deport. And detainment might lead to separation during prosecution. None of this is new, it's just actually being done as the law states.